I don't know French. :p

Pyro,

Ousting Saddam was in our best interest.

Bringing freedom to the Iraqi people is in our best interest.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Jimro

Yeah because in the Bush administration's twisted sense of entitlement, the Iraqi Oil belongs to America. With Bush in charge I doubt America musch less the human race will last the 21st century.

Pyro,

If America we taking Iraqi oil we wouldn't be paying so much at the gas pump. Your attack on the Bush administration has no foundation in reality.

Jimro

Really?

What can I say that Cycle, Eon, Cooki haven't? Any ounce of common sense they had in their post seems to slide off your skin like teflon.

Bush was a horrible president that lied to his people and the world about a stockpile of WMD that didn't exist. Exploited the deaths of thousands of Americans to further his own ambitions and god knows what else. If America votes for Bush in November, there probably won't be an America left in 2008.

Subjective as it may be that's what I see as the truth Jimro and you can't change it.

Pyro, you're arguing with a brick wall, a VERY thick one. The best thing is to refuse any new arguement till he rebutes the standing ones he's ignoring. Just say, "please refer to my previous post" over and over again, everytime he posts and ignores your points. He's avoiding your points for a reason.

Rico, I don't think I can contribute anything of use to this topic so I'll butt out before this gets ugly.

You're wiser than I. I let him trick me into attacking him.

Are we done acting like little kids yet? Or should I come back later? It's just that I was planning to bring some actual constructive debate into the discussion and don't really want it to get sidelined by the childish Jimro-bashing.

Are we going to listen to my earlier advice in this topic about the sheer futility of so polarised a debate now? I really think we should because this topic is a stalemate and has been since it was first made.

Heh, that's what Bush has done. If America's in the middle of a war, it can't pay so much attention to its other problems. Like drugs, crime, hospitals and, yes, the economy!

As for oil, the reason we're paying so much at the pump is:

We're running out.

We are, there's no denying it. In fifty years, there won't be a drop of gooey, black stuff anywhere, and it's us on the Mofo, and our children and grandchildren, who will have to live without it. The likes of Bush and Blair will be dead by then, so it won't be their problem.

Oh there is plenty of oil. It's just up in those nice prestine areas that would look pretty ugly with huge factories...

We just need to transfer to a new energy source so we can stop mooching off a country that supports terrorists! (Saudia Arabia)

Speaking of oil......we are actually going to run out much sooner than that.

Why?

Because by 2020, 900 million new cars will be on the road.

Where, you ask?

China. China's fuel consumption has increased drastically, and their domestic companies make cars that guzzle gas comparably to our SUVs.

So, yes, we will run out of gas at this rate. Even the Chinese government is saying this.

For once I agree with Tornadot. It's like Maggie Thatcher annihilating the British coal industry and forcing us to rely on more foreign coal. We're still sitting on massive coal fields actually, but most mines have been closed apart from one or two which seem to be the infinitely less sightly open cast mines. Those things are real eyesores.

Anyway, the point is if you depend on other countries to provide natural resources then they can afford to charge you more because you depend on them and they know you will pay. There's nothing wrong with importing natural resources, indeed some countries have no choice (Japan is forced to import every single drop of oil it uses because it's only real natural resource is timber), but where the choice exists it's probably better to make sure that you do at least have your own supply to fall back on if things go awry. I wouldn't like to see a British coal crisis, especially when the house I live in has an open fire.

Still, fossil fuels are finite and even with backup supplies they're going to run out within the century (probably much sooner), so governments really need to start seriously considering alternative energy sources and funding for further research and production in that field. Sooner or later, we're going to need good electric or hydrogen fueled cars, so why not start developing them now?

Meh, someone probably is doing it, but I don't see much interest being shown by the governments that really matter. And the USA is the number one country that should be showing interest, given that in 2000 it was responsible for consuming 25% of all the world's crude oil, which made it the highest consuming country on Earth followed by China at around 10% (though that's probably increased since).

But what exactly is Bush doing about alternative energy resources?

If he'd done anything to endanger his wealthy family's oil-driven income, I'm sure we'd have heard about it.

Oh, and...

Heh. Yeah, that's how it's done.

20 years? Damn, I'll only be 39 by then! I won't even have time to start somoking and die from lung cancer! (Though I might get knocked down by one of those cars...)

And Bush thinks that the best way to solve the problem is with more drilling? Even if we do find another good source of oil, it can't help us for much more than another fifty years. And it won't bring down prices.

Can't the man even think about his own family? An oil-fuelled income won't mean much when there is no oil, and it's his kids who will have that problem.

Screw up the world today and let your grandkids clean up the mess! >_> Least that seems to be the current thinking..

I'm giving Pyro advice Cycle. You seem to be the only one here that doesn't see him do it. And calling people "childish" is a personal attack.

Seeings as Rico didn't say it, I will: "Millie is my hero!"

Ah, they learn so fast. Millie is the worlds greatest philosopher.

It's that right

I'm giving Pyro advice Cycle.
MSN Messenger is your friend.

You seem to be the only one here that doesn't see him do it.
Trust me, it sometimes infuriates me, but I'd rather play hardball than cry foul. It's just a discussion. It's not like it'll change anything if everyone plays fair.

And calling people "childish" is a personal attack.
*shrug* I could argue about it, but I'm not in an arguing mood. Sorry 'bout that, Rick.

Freedom of Speech: "The ability to say what you want, as long as we want you to say it."

Rules are there for a reason. They're there because people aren't all sensible, and thusly they don't all think before they type.

Quote:

---

first of all, affirmative action ain't cuttin it, especially for blacks here. The immigrants of Africa are passing us by because of good old hard work. Women here are very well off compared with the rest of the world

---

I couldn't leave this for two reasons.

1) Affirmative action is doing what it's supposed to do. If the "immigrants of Africa are passing us by because of good old hard work" then affirmative action is working. Affirmative action is supposed to go to those who ARE working, not to those that are lazy. One of the hugest misconceptions of affirmative action is that it prefers the "lazy minority" over the "hard-working majority." That's incorrect. Affirmative action is about taking the "hard-working minority" and giving them a chance against the "hard-working majority" that has more opportunities. Example: Some minority-heavy school districts do not offer the AP classes that the white-heavy school districts do or even some of the same advanced classes. Colleges will take what the school offers as well as how the minority child did and may still admit them into their college despite not having the same courses as some others since its not the minority person's fault that they didn't have the same original opportunities as someone else. That's what affirmative action is about though depending on the situation the "majority" might be the "minority" particularly in Historically Black Colleges & Universities that are trying to attract more White students. Affirmative action varies depending on the subject, but it's only for those that are "hard-working." Lazy people don't benefit from affirmative action, nor should they.

2) I'm sorry but the whole "women are better here than elsewhere" reminds me of how some the loudest critics of say Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1950s & 1960s were Blacks that were afraid of becoming worse off due to the civil rights movement. Being better off than elsewhere isn't good enough, or else everyone in the U.S. should stop complaining about EVERYTHING because for the most part in comparison to most of the world, we're better here than elsewhere.

Gotta cut this short as I have a class to cover and the bell just rang. **is working at a middle school**

Although I believe the ones who (might) have it the hardest are black men...I think so this isn't concrete. I think many places will put a women in a position of authority before they put a black man there...because I think even black women are doing better than the men...

Example: Some minority-heavy school districts do not offer the AP classes that the white-heavy school districts do or even some of the same advanced classes. Colleges will take what the school offers as well as how the minority child did and may still admit them into their college despite not having the same courses as some others since its not the minority person's fault that they didn't have the same original opportunities as someone else.

*nods* Something worth thinking about but some of that really shouldn't come into account. Just because there aren't any AP courses doesn't mean the kids there aren't smart...I wish some people would stop thinking like that (I don't mean you though). Because I knew plenty of sharp minorities who never took AP courses and did well in college...

Very good argument though...

Now look what you did. You made me break out the macro's.

Hello,

Found an interesting article.

www.newsmax.com/archives/...2930.shtml

The idea that President Bush is using his office to ensure profits for his private business (which he cannot by law control while president) is not logical. It would be an act worth impeachment, and if you go to the dnc homepage, their impeachment petition deals only with the Iraq war. Draw a logical conclusion from the evidence provided.

Bush and Kerry support hydrogen as the new fuel source for automobiles. The gas/electric hybrids on the road today are fruits of research done by the chrysler corporation, they used a diesel engine and electric generator to make a prototype sedan that got 55 miles to the gallon. The only problem was a production model of that vehicle would cost 60 thousand to manufacture (exotic materials), but research continues.

I fully expect biodiesel to become much more popular in the next few years. Already heating oil companies are taking notice of biodiesel.

Jimro

How nice. Now Kerry supporters are being compared to Socialist Nazis.

And we were the ones accused of constantly likening Bush to Hitler, hm?

Also noting that this is a right-slanted website, as well.

Cooki,

I said it was an interesting article.

Yes, there are similarities between the followers of Hitler and Kerry, and I think Phil explores that similarity better than I can.

The cartoons posted in this thread have been obviously slanted, as are some of the URL's provided.

So what?

Jimro

Comical strips of cartoons and comparing people to genocidal manic's are different.

I will be voting for Kerry. Did you post that artical to say I am like hitler? If no, then your intentions where misread, if yes it is a personal attack and against the rules.

So. Are you saying Cookie is like Hitler?

And yes that IS a loaded question.

If yes, then you have a warning. If no, then your article was simply too edgey. Humor is a very good way to say something. Name calling his not.

Rico,

Once again you look to be insulted when none was intended.

The article showed similar activities between Hitler supporters and Kerry supporters across the US.

As long as you aren't burning signs, keying cars, and vandalizing campaign headquarters you have nothing to worry about.

Jimro

EDIT, double post.

But you're likely to have idiots supporting any cause (and who generally don't do said cause much justice). Look at Fox-Hunting, for example...

You failed to read my whole post, once again.

Rico,

I read your whole post. I do not always reply to everything in a post because there are some things I deem not worth discussing.

Here is an example.

Loaded questions are not worth answering because;

Rico, have you stopped molesting children yet?

It is a loaded question because it automatically leads someone to assume that you are currently molesting children, answering YES means you WERE a child molester, answering NO means you ARE a child molester. Launching into a long answer of how you have never molested children puts you on the defensive, which is a bad place to be.

It is usually best to just ignore them.

Example over.

However, if you deem that the article I linked to is "Too edgey" then you should realize the double standard you are expressing. Cycle called for GeorgeWBush to be prosecuted for war crimes. The same process used on former Nazi's tried at Nuremberg

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/...emberg.htm

Since you obviously find reference to war crimes ok, but references to Hitler's rise to power not ok, then it leads me to understand that your political bias excludes the concept of "fair play".

That's ok, the world isn't fair. If it was, it wouldn't be interesting.

Jimro

I missed Cycle's link. I'm not perfect.

Cycle,

Be aware that rule 1.1 states:

You are in violation of this rule. Try to tone down your posting style or you will be given a warning. Please be aware that accumulating 3 of these will result in a one week ban. This is to help keep order and a positive attitude in our users.

Jimro,

Be aware that rule 1.1 states:

Thank you and happy posting!

What did I do?

Rico,

Are you implying that the URL I supplied is flamebait? That is not a loaded question, it can be answered by a yes or no.

If you think I'm being rude to you, I don't have any problem working through that with a moderator.

Jimro

He said you linked to some thing talking about Bush's followers being like hitler.

Yes, it was. I think its debatable but because of the nature of this discussion I do not think its a good idea to post links to articles likening 1/2 the board to Hitler.

He said you linked to some thing talking about Bush's followers being like hitler.
I never linked anything of the sort. Nor did I intentionally liken Bush to a Nazi, nor did I mention Nazis at any time in this thread. I would never do that. Whenever someone does try to draw such a semblance, I'm among the first to jump on them.

All I said was that Bush and several other Coalition officials should be tried for war crimes, as there is now sufficient legal precedent to do so.

I apologize, Cycle. I should not have said that based on his word alone.

There is a massive difference in the two. Cycle likened Bush to a nazi. Bush is a public figure and it is not against the rules to insult him. HOWEVER the link Jimro posted likened Kerry FOLLOWERS, not Kerry himself to the Nazi regime.

Rico,

Yup, I posted a link that drew similarities between Kerry supporters and Hitler supporters. No Kerry supporter has yet said that the acts those Kerry supporters have committed are despicable.

However this is a political thread in a political season with three weeks before the election. The URL is directly related to the thread topic because you can tell a lot about a candidate by their supporters.

Cycle,

I was the one who brought the Nuremberg trials as historical precedence for war crimes. You calling for President Bush's prosecution of War Crimes automatically puts him in the same category. Obviously President Bush did not order genocide. However, your request for prosecution implicitly makes the comparison between Bush and Nuremberg.

Jimro

I was mostly talking to Rico; I know you brought it up first. No harm done. Fortunately for you, I'm in a good mood and I don't really mind. I were in a bad mood, however I would be deeply offended by that inference. Comparing Bush to Hitler is complete lunacy.

Cycle,

The Serb/Croation war crime/crime against humanity trials were the first thing that came to my mind when you posted your request. However it should be noted that those prosecuted deliberately targeted civilians, or ordered soldiers to target civilians. Nuremberg is the most famous case of war crime trials and is the stronger example.

For more info on the Balkan war crimes:

www.cco.caltech.edu/~bosn...inals.html

Jimro

I'm not saying Bush deliberately targeted innocents. He did, however, start a war for a false reason, which was later revised to a reason that is not viable for going to war. This qualifies as a war crime according to the UN Charter. I think that, at the very least, a complete, uncensored investigation of the Bush administration is in order.

Yup, I posted a link that drew similarities between Kerry supporters and Hitler supporters. No Kerry supporter has yet said that the acts those Kerry supporters have committed are despicable.

However this is a political thread in a political season with three weeks before the election. The URL is directly related to the thread topic because you can tell a lot about a candidate by their supporters.

Somehow, I don't think that really justifies what you linked.

I'm not a "Nazi socialist", and I don't approve of what these other Kerry supporters have done.

But just because other Kerry supporters have done it, doesn't give you the automatic right to generalize that because we support Kerry, and these other people supported Kerry, then surely, I must go out at night and key people's cars and smash in the windows of people who vote for Bush.

It's the same as generalizing that all Italians are gun-toting gangsters in NYC who eat spagetti every night and have fat mammas who tend to their every need. I know its not true. You should too.

"you can tell a lot about a candidate by their supporters"

So are you saying all supporters are alike? Because I'm pretty sure they aren't. I'm pretty not everyone that votes for Kerry is not like me.

Are you saying that I should compare Bush to his most fanatical supporters?

Cooki,

Thanks you for not approving of Kerry supporters who vandalize property. That's the closest yet anyone has come to condemning such actions.

Rico,

Remember the swiftvets debate? Talking about Bush supporters has already been accomplished. We can pull out the crazy's from both camps if you want to.

If you compare the Gun Control policies of Nazi Germany with the GCA of 1968 and AWB, then once again there are striking similarities. Both laws were put into effect by Democrats.

If you compare the Baathist (socialist) party solution to creating Jobs, it is similar to John Kerry. 60% of the workers in Iraq were working for the government.

When openly socialist policies abroad are adopted by the Democratic Party, well, if it looks like a duck, and quack likes a duck.... The current Democratic party is not the Dems of John F. Kennedy and before. The current Democratic party has a socialist agenda and mission statement.

Jimro

You are evading my points again. Don't make me repeat myself, I hate it. o.-

I cannot read every post on this board. I will not break out the yellow font again to quote a rule. We have the "please report crap to a mod" rule for a reason. If you think someone has posted something that is flamebait, DO NOT respond with more flamebait. Take the issue to a CSR... er Mod or Admin and it will be dealt with.

Quote:

---

Yes, there are similarities between the followers of Hitler and Kerry, and I think Phil explores that similarity better than I can.

---

Quote:

---

As long as you aren't burning signs, keying cars, and vandalizing campaign headquarters you have nothing to worry about.

---

Admin mode

Note that in the original you didn't say 'a few followers,' but 'the followers.' They have a good reason to take offense to that. I wouldn't say the link is against the rules, but I'm itching to rebut it.

I've been staying out out of this topic, since I'm too busy/stressed to make a proper response, and I want to make a REALLY good response. So try not to let things get further out of hand, everybody.